On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 04:25:06PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 04:13:08PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > I just cut and pasted that from blk_update_request(), which is what the > > next patch refactors... > > Yeah, well, that was written when we didn't have WARNs. > > > But yes it would be a bug. It gets converted to a BUG_ON() in a later > > patch (not in this series), as this gets further abstracted into a > > wrapper around bvec_advance_iter() which doesn't know about struct bio > > (as bio integrity gets its own iterator). > > WARN() generally preferable unless there's no way at all to continue. > Storage layer could be a bit different if immediate danger for data > corruption exists but the general consensus seems that we're too > trigger happy with BUG_ON()s. Yeah. Changed it to a WARN_ONCE(). -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
